The Obama campaign is spending $5 million dollars to air ads during the Olympics. Meanwhile, an individual civil liberties geek can pay less than 0.001% of that amount to put a Get FISA Right ad on cable TV.
Let's start with the cliche: New tech tools drastically reduced the costs of cultural and political activity, allowing outsiders without kazillions of dollars to effect public discourse and the political process. First it happened with blogs, and then it happened with video.
We are in the second election cycle of the YouTube era, where video can go viral on the internet and then be widely reported on on TV. For next to nothing, it's possible for activists and campaigns to get their ads covered. YouTube allows for new ways to influence the media, but it hasn't changed the basic structure of a system in which TV ads are still the domain of traditional big money politics.
This may be about to change a little. Last week, this post described how a new startup (whose investors include Ashton Kutcher's company) approached Get FISA Right and put together an ad that supporters can now get on the air for amounts that range from $21 (Raleigh) to $1750 (LA, Comedy Central 4pm - midnight). All an individual has to do to get an ad on the air is contribute the money: there's no need to fill out FEC paperwork.
What are the implications of a low cost ad broker that allows individuals to pay relatively small amounts of money to put ads on cable in the zip codes, channels and times of their choosing?
Well, it could simply be the political cable ad equivalent of vanity publishing. It might also be another way to get mainstream media coverage - just a more expensive version of YouTube. Or it could be a way for grassroots activists to bridge the gap from the online world to TV advertising.
What does it mean for political campaigns trying to control their message when individuals -- possibly with no connection to the campaign whatsoever -- can get in on the game? Can this be a way for outsiders to get campaigns to address issues they might not otherwise acknowledge? How many civil liberties advocates paying for Get FISA Right ads in a district will it take to make FISA a campaign issue?
It's worth noting that ad hoc political advertising could potentially create other issues for political campaigns trying to control their message. Imagine a controversial ad paid for by a San Francisco resident that runs in a moderate or conservative district in South Carolina. That's the sort of thing a Republican operative in a tight race dreams of.
Obviously, the biggest political impact would occur in campaigns where microtargeting would be particularly relevant. In the meantime, it's likely that PSAs are where this will really take off; it's easy to see large numbers of people donating money for, say, anti-cancer PSAs.
There are lots of unanswered questions here, and, particularly in certain markets, the amount of money involved is still large enough so that this is still an elite issue. But the fact remains that, like blogging, like YouTube, the barriers for political participation have once again been lowered.
STATE BLOGS
